Well here we go… Another Motion for them to ignore. I have had it with the City of Everett, all of it’s agents involved in this Kangaroo Sham of a case. I think this might be one of many more to come. I have included the laws, the rules & the Constitution for those of you who need it so you can see when your RIGHTS are being blatantly violated.

TO THE CITY OF EVERETT:

YOUR ACTIONS WILL DETERMINE MINE

Sorry everyone I am not in the chatterbox mood right now I am working on about 42 documents right now.

Come now BRANDIA TAAMU (Estate) requesting a Change of Venue to King County as it has become far more than apparent that Ms Taamu can not receive a fair trial in the Everett Municipal Court, there are only 2 judges on the bench and one has been Affidavited out as the original writer of the warrant, the other has already pronounced Ms Taamu guilty at a custody hearing on April, 6th 2011. It has been brought to the attention of the presiding judge that his continued presence gives the appearance of impropriety and he should have stepped down from the case some 8 months ago but has thus far refused to do so. We are asking for the change of Venue to King County because the Judge in question is also a Judge Pro-tem for Snohomish Superior Court. I know the following statements to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt and have proof of any and all claims that are made here.

AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF TRUTH

1) In the beginning of this case Judge Timothy O’Dell was removed by Affidavit as the signer of the original warrant for the illegal seizure of Ms Tammu’s property and animals at which time Judge David C Mitchell was appointed by default.
2) On April 6th 2011 during a custody hearing Judge Mitchell stated in court: You abused your animals so I think the Everett Animal Control knows what is better for them than you. Judging and effectively sentencing Ms Taamu by withholding her property in animals because it was his belief she was guilty as he stated, showing extreme bias
3) During another hearing where Ms Taamu was trying to get “permission” to represent herself Pro-persona, Judge Mitchell ridiculed Ms Taamu repeatedly and stated “The Washington State Supreme Court seems to think that you have the right to represent yourself, we here in Everett don’t” Giving the impression that Judge Mitchell thought himself far more Superior to the defendant and the laws of the State of Washington, when in fact he is merely a steward of a court of limited jurisdiction that is beholden to the State of Washington, the Supreme Court and the laws of such, further instilling in Ms Taamu’s mind that there was no way she would get a fair an unbiased trial. Judge Mitchell also neglected to inform Ms Taamu that according to state law she was entitled to counsel but that she was not required by law to take or receive counsel
4) At one court hearing Ms Taamu was 8 minutes late, an Judge Mitchell ordered a warrant for Ms Taamu’s arrest, even though Ms Taamu had called to let the courts know she was going to be late.
5) At yet another hearing Ms Taamu was sick enough that she couldn’t stand or walk, and by now was so afraid of the double dealings of the court did not appear but did contact her attorney and the courts to let them know she could not be present. Ms Taamu was actually terrified she would be arrested for appearing and exposing dangerous disease according to RCW 70.54.050, and that she would be arrested for not appearing. The bail was so excessive that the arresting officer, and all the staff at the jail were commenting on it and saying they had never in their careers seen anything so ridiculous, and spent most of the time apologizing to me for it. Either way she knew she was doomed, and Ms Taamu was right in her assertions as she subsequently spent 2 days in jail as a result of this.
6) This is the norm in Ms Taamu’s dealings with the court. After 50 separate court appearances, Ms Taamu has become weary that there is any end or any Justice in sight. The lack of respect or regards for Ms Taamu’s disabilities, and Ms Taamu’s feeble attempts at trying to protect herself and her rights merely as a human being have only garnered ridicule and mockery from Judge Mitchell, with him going as far as to tell her that her Motions, make her look bad, or even make her look stupid. Ms Taamu is not mentally deficient, she has high functioning autism, she is anything but stupid but when an officer of the courts insist you are then please explain to the general public how it is that supposed to give anyone any confidence in the Judiciary, or to even expect justice.
7) Ms Taamu out of fear for her life and the life of her animals has created a web page and a blog to chronicle their and her abuse at the hands of the courts and has tracking on both which record the IP Address of each visitor,
8) The last court appearance Judge Mitchell was very upset and told Ms Taamu that she had made some pretty serious accusations against him with her final Motion to dismiss, at which time he stated he did not say what he did on April 6th Ms Taamu has the tapes, the court has the tapes, they are a matter of public record. It would defy all logic for Ms Taamu to lie as the lives of her animals that she loves very much, one of whom was her service dog and one of which who was her therapy dog, are at stake
9) At another hearing for discovery Ms Taamu and her former counsel were trying to get lab results, during the arguments Judge Mitchell stated “I thought all the lab results said they were all in awful condition” Ms Taamu nor her counsel had the results so how did he know what they said? That is in fact not what they said giving the appearance once again of bias again, and that he was having ex-parte communications.
10) Judge Mitchell is fully aware of the fact that he and Ms Taamu are related by blood. Ms Taamu has posted her family tree on her page and explained in one communication how they are related, she did not post his but he merely needs to look on Ancestry.com to find the family tree. Ms Taamu does not want any of her blood involved in any of her affairs. Had Ms Taamu looked at his name before she put in the Affidavit against Judge O’Dell she would have gladly taken my chances with Judge O’Dell
11) The Prosecutor involved in this case seems to have taken this personally from the outset, in a hearing to return Ms Taamu’s animals, he accused her of committing several crimes of fraud using her terminally ill dog. There was no basis for this accusation, and Ms Taamu was never charged with anything of that nature because it was a lie garnered to keep control and custody of her animals, amounting to slander and libel. Furthermore now they are playing the blame game, claiming the City’s attorney James Iles who wrote it, his name is in fact on the document, yet Mr Fisher is the one who signed and presented the document
12) The prosecutor in this case has taken to spending 20 to 70 hours per week on Ms Taamu’s web page and blog and is extracting information to use in frivolous Motions of Limine. As a matter of fact the City of Everett, and it’s agents make up 45% of the readership and traffic from their offices and their homes.
13) In the prosecutor’s latest attempt at harassment he called the Snohomish County Animal Control and told them that Ms Taamu had 20+ dogs in kennels filled with their own feces, with no food and water, which obviously was not true. Using other agencies to try to harass Ms Taamu is not only giving the appearance of impropriety it is an absolute miscarriage and abuse of their station in office. These are elected and hired officers of the court. At the very least this conduct so unbecoming it would leave the city open to further Tort Claims, as it would be hard to believe that Ms Taamu would be the only person abused in this way in this municipality. It does not “border” on the criminal, it is absolutely criminal.
14) The Prosecutor has directed the city’s witnesses to file false police reports against Ms Taamu, in regards to her blog, and or web page. Yet has done nothing about one of their witnesses posting over 300 ads about Ms Taamu on all types of social media including craigslist, facebook, myspace and other mediums, as a matter of act it is encouraged to cast Ms Taamu in a negative light in the public media who has refused to even entertain an article about this because they have seen the sham that it is. Ms Rose Adams, the city’s witness has even taken to using Ms Taamu’s name to post derogatory and false statements about her, without the understanding that most of the other web page and blog owners also have tracking software and are more than willing to share info in situations like these.

Ms Taamu has taken all of her evidence and shown it to several other prosecutors and their statements were that this whole thing would fall apart on the first witness brought by the city, the numerous Motions Ms Taamu has filed in this matter it was their opinion that those were in fact very well read and versed for a layman, and that they did in fact have merit, and that Ms Taamu laid out a Prima Facie case for many of her Motions that should have been granted and it was also their opinion that there was never any real basis for bringing charges, it is their opinion that this is a thinly veiled attempt at retribution for some offense.

Ms Taamu has received support from all around the world, including Judges, Prosecutors, Police, and other Judiciary Officers, most importantly from the same in this state who know the range and scope of the law, and all they can do is tell Ms Taamu how sorry they are that anyone in their station would or could conduct themselves in such a manner, and to please understand that they are the exception, not the rule. We realize that this request will be met with hostility, and most likely disregarded so this matter will be appealed at every level available, and if in fact Ms Taamu is once again jailed she will have an immediate Writ of Habeus Corpus filed. Because of the incompetent counsel Ms Taamu has thus far received, she was unaware of any of her rights and of course the courts did nothing to remedy this situation. The first counselor had no idea what was going on, the second knew but refused to file anything in Ms Taamu’s behalf because “He knew Judge Mitchell wouldn’t listen” Ms Taamu wants nothing further to do with the incestuous nature of their relationships, they pay them, not Ms Taamu, it is not in their best interest to bit the hands that feed them.

We have requested King County because it is the easiest to access for Ms Taamu because of the 50 plus court appearances, time spent in jail, time and effort spent on research, and the amount of money that Ms Taamu is indebted to others, she has not been able to obtain any meaningful employment, her health has suffered, and her emotional health has been compromised by the terroristic tactics used by the city of Everett in denying and withholding Ms Taamu any access or any news about her animals which are sentient beings in order to garner submission from Ms Taamu. To date Ms Taamu knows of the true fate of only ONE of her animals and that is only because she has seen pictures of him gutted, with his internal organs sliced out, and displayed with sticky notes pasted all over them.

If there ever was a valid reason for a change of venue this case could be the model of examples. We are reminded by the Washington state Constitution and the Constitution of the United States, that respect for the Judiciary and the law is to be given so as to keep the integrity but the Judiciary and it’s officers are also reminded to act in a manner above reproach to garner that respect. This has never been the case in the city of Everett, as a matter of fact this entire cases flies in the face of any type of conduct becoming any judiciary official. As a matter of fact it is the city’s position that they are not beholden to any of these as Mr Fisher stated in Superior court, because as he claims they are a first class city.

Ms Taamu has held off on reporting all of you and your actions because she thought at some point you would relent and do the right, fair, and just thing but so far all that has gotten her is 369 days away from her animals, cost her her health and her faith in humanity. We are confident that if this case were to come before a judge or a prosecutor without ulterior motives we would prevail. It is the practice of the City of Everett in all of it’s departments to violate the law and spend up to 3 times more to defend against wrongdoing then to just do the right thing. We have no faith, or belief we could EVER get a fair and unbiased trial within the jurisdiction of Everett or Snohomish County

Brandia Taamu (Electronic Signature)
BRANDIA TAAMU (Estate)

RULE 5.2
CHANGE OF VENUE
(2) Upon motion of the defendant, supported by affidavit, that the defendant believes he or she cannot receive a fair trial in the district where the action is pending; or (3) Upon motion of either party that the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice would be served by such change; or (c) Procedure on Transfer. When the court orders a change of venue it shall direct that all the papers and proceedings be certified to the court of the proper district. The defendant and subpoenaed witnesses shall have a continuing obligation to appear and attend as required.
CANON 1
RULE 1.2 Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.* COMMENT [1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. [3] Conduct that compromises the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. [5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICE IMPARTIALLY, COMPETENTLY, AND DILIGENTLY.
RULE 2.2
Impartiality and Fairness
A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.* COMMENT [1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded. [4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
RULE 2.3
Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment
(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice. (B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so. COMMENT [1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. [2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased. [3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.
RULE 2.6
Ensuring the Right to Be Heard
(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.* COMMENT [1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.
RULE 2.7
Responsibility to Decide
A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification or recusal is required by RULE 2.11 or other law.* COMMENT [1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the court. Although there are times when disqualification is necessary to protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, judges must be available to decide matters that come before the courts.
RULE 2.9
Ex Parte Communications
(A) A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending* or impending matter,* before that judge’s court except as follows: (B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond. (C) A judge shall not investigate facts in a matter pending or impending before that judge, and shall consider only the evidence presented and any facts that may properly be judicially noticed, unless expressly authorized by law. COMMENT [1] To the extent reasonably possible, all parties or their lawyers shall be included in communications with a judge. [2] Whenever the presence of a party or notice to a party is required by this Rule, it is the party’s lawyer, or if the party is unrepresented, the party, who is to be present or to whom notice is to be given. [5] A judge may consult with other judges on pending matters, but must avoid ex parte discussions of a case with judges who have previously been disqualified from hearing the matter, and with judges who have appellate jurisdiction over the matter. [6] The prohibition against a judge investigating the facts in a matter extends to information available in all mediums, including electronic.

RULE 2.11
Disqualification
(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding. (2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge’s spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is: (c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or COMMENT [1] Under this Rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (5) apply. In many jurisdictions in Washington, the term “recusal” is used interchangeably with the term “disqualification.” [2] A judge’s obligation not to hear or decide matters in which disqualification is required applies regardless of whether a motion to disqualify is filed. [5] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.

Washington State Constitution

PREAMBLE
We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution.

ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.
Do you understand that you only have the power you have because it is granted by US THE PEOPLE

SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Contrary to your belief that you don’t have to follow the Constitution because you are a first class city

SECTION 3 PERSONAL RIGHTS. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
I can’t even begin to count the ways that you have violated all of this

SECTION 4 RIGHT OF PETITION AND ASSEMBLAGE. The right of petition and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good shall never be abridged.

SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

SECTION 6 OATHS – MODE OF ADMINISTERING. The mode of administering an oath, or affirmation, shall be such as may be most consistent with and binding upon the conscience of the person to whom such oath, or affirmation, may be administered.
Do any of you remember the oath you took, do you even have any regard for it?

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

SECTION 9 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.
This is exactly what you did with the Superior Court Hearing

SECTION 10 ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Justice in all cases shall be administered openly, and without unnecessary delay.
How is 1 year AND 50 court appearances later “unecessary delay”

SECTION 11 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion;

SECTION 13 HABEAS CORPUS. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.

SECTION 14 EXCESSIVE BAIL, FINES AND PUNISHMENTS. Excessive bail shall not be required, excessive fines imposed, nor cruel punishment inflicted.
The Everett Police Officers and the Snohomish County Jail staff and Officers were flabberghasted at how high my bail was

SECTION 21 TRIAL BY JURY. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, but the legislature may provide for a jury of any number less than twelve in courts not of record, and for a verdict by nine or more jurors in civil cases in any court of record, and for waiving of the jury in civil cases where the consent of the parties interested is given thereto.

SECTION 22 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person, or by counsel, to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a copy thereof, to testify in his own behalf, to meet the witnesses against him face to face, to have compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his own behalf, to have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is charged to have been committed and the right to appeal in all cases: In no instance shall any accused person before final judgment be compelled to advance money or fees to secure the rights herein guaranteed. [AMENDMENT 10, 1921 p 79 Section 1. Approved November, 1922.]
NOWHERE in law does it say I am required to have counsel only that I have the right to it. You can not dictate to me or make the choice for me or take away my rights to decide what is in my own best interest.

SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

SECTION 30 RIGHTS RESERVED. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.

SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.

ARTICLE XXVI COMPACT WITH THE UNITED STATES
The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this state:
First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of this state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.